|
Post by downtheline on Jan 30, 2014 0:17:43 GMT -5
There is a reason college coaches own and/or coach club ball. Or run summer clinics.
Two of my kids were coached in club or USA programs by their soon to be NCAA coach.
First visits started in 8th grade, which is unregulated territory. Same coaches followed and offered, but that doesn't obligate or force a hand. And it was inspiring to the the kids, although no decisions were being forced or going to be made by the athlete or family.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 30, 2014 2:12:35 GMT -5
I think that the problem is early offering, not early committing, which is only taking advantage of an opportunity when available. The only way to control this is to place a price on making an early offer. For instance, require that early offers (say before Sept. 1st of a recruit's sophomore year) include a 2-year scholarship guarantee if accepted within the specified timeframe, but with the recruit able to opt out up until a certain date (say, Sept. 1st of their junior year). If that was the case, I think the number of early offers would slow from a stream to a trickle. But it's all verbal, all nebulous. How do you police such a thing? Why settle for less than a written offer with a two-year guarantee, if that's what is called for? Let's say that a 14-year old announced she'd committed to Podunk State U - the response would be, where is the written offer? If the coach really wants her, he'd give her a real offer. The coach would also be vulnerable to being trumped by a real offer. Sure you might have some silent verbals, but those athletes would continue to be recruited. If a bunch of 14-year and 15-year olds start popping up as announced commits to a particular school, but without a signed offer and guarantee, that by itself would be strong evidence of a violation. My bet is that it would stop the race to the bottom and allow ethical coaches, who're the vast majority, to just say no.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 30, 2014 7:15:47 GMT -5
The NCAA prohibits written offers before a PSA's senior year of high school.
|
|
|
Post by goodtobeagator on Jan 30, 2014 7:25:17 GMT -5
The NCAA prohibits written offers before a PSA's senior year of high school. I get this, but...what if it was allowed? I like red beards idea. What if the NCAA said "You can sign a kid Sept 1 of freshman year up to November signing day. However, any signed kid in this early time frame can only be offered a guaranteed 4 year scholarship. And if the signing is later cancelled, the programs scholarship count will be reduced by one each year the prospect was to be a member of that program." That would get reeeeaaaalllly interesting. Would throw the verbals out the window and coaches would recruit kids up to a signing and remove any incentive to verbally commit early. Making both the school and prospect to put their money where their mouth is.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 30, 2014 7:37:16 GMT -5
The last thing the NCAA is going to do at this point is a) add further regulations and b) further restrict PSA or student-athlete movement. Their emphasis over the last few years has been as much deregulation as the schools can stomach.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 30, 2014 12:38:52 GMT -5
The NCAA prohibits written offers before a PSA's senior year of high school. The proposal would obviously change that for early offers.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 30, 2014 13:18:08 GMT -5
The NCAA prohibits written offers before a PSA's senior year of high school. I get this, but...what if it was allowed? I like red beards idea. What if the NCAA said "You can sign a kid Sept 1 of freshman year up to November signing day. However, any signed kid in this early time frame can only be offered a guaranteed 4 year scholarship. And if the signing is later cancelled, the programs scholarship count will be reduced by one each year the prospect was to be a member of that program." That would get reeeeaaaalllly interesting. Would throw the verbals out the window and coaches would recruit kids up to a signing and remove any incentive to verbally commit early. Making both the school and prospect to put their money where their mouth is. I'm for a two-year guarantee for early committers. I doubt that a four-year guarantee would get approved. Schools might vote to slap themselves on the hand to get themselves to behave, but probably not to kick themselves in the butt. The idea would be to halt the race to the bottom, rather than eliminate all early offers. One reason this could work is that there would be an incentive for the recruit to commit, to lock in the scholarship, in that they can opt out (say, by Sept. 1st of their junior year). That would cause coaches to think twice before making the offer. Ideally you'd only want to offer "sure bets," but those are also the ones who can probably afford to wait (unless their dream school comes knocking) or who might opt out. A written (and signed) scholarship guarantee would be a contract, signed by both parties, so they couldn't just reneg. She'd still have to get admitted. If caught (recorded on an iPhone?) making an early verbal offer, then the penalty could be losing that scholarship for two years, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Jan 30, 2014 13:48:49 GMT -5
We live in a free society, so this entire subject is much ado about nothing. Simply a case of buyer beware--affects no one directly except the decision-making family and the offering coach.
|
|
|
Post by internationalball on Jan 30, 2014 15:48:52 GMT -5
Didn't go through the entire thread to read, but to answer the thread title...It has been happening since the mid 90's. It's nothing new, it is kind of ridiculous that they now go after kids in middle school.
|
|
|
Post by beba on Jan 30, 2014 21:46:14 GMT -5
LOL, 14? My daughter hadn't even begun to play volleyball until 14. And most of her college teammates who started much earlier were pretty sick of the grind by then........
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 31, 2014 20:45:10 GMT -5
Relates to the Early Specialization thread. Kids are pressured to specialize earlier and earlier because they're being recruited earlier and earlier.
|
|
|
Post by rogero1 on Feb 1, 2014 8:23:22 GMT -5
Relates to the Early Specialization thread. Kids are pressured to specialize earlier and earlier because they're being recruited earlier and earlier. As a former 14's coach, I was chastised by some parents for not specializing their child so that she could make their Chicago north shore HS teams. I was trying to make them all well rounded players so that whatever position they (or their HS coaches) decided on, they would have an idea of what they were doing. Evidently, those parents were only looking at their DD's HS volleyball future as part of her HS resume to get into an Ivy League school.
|
|
|
Post by Upfrontvb on Feb 1, 2014 10:50:03 GMT -5
When players (and their parents are)are being recruited, do they look who are already on the team (who will fit the recruit style of play) and the other recruits who are coming in with them. The reason why I ask, I saw that USC has 3 OH all coming in at the same time and USC is only losing 2 players, Natalie and another position player. Same thing with other programs, you are highly recruited along with other players and the team already have players in place, so the incoming player may have to redshirt.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 1, 2014 14:14:02 GMT -5
The truth is that not every athlete is recruited early. Those that are, do not always make an early commitment. No one has claimed that every athlete is recruited early. The very best recruits can afford to wait, knowing that schools will keep slots open to them. Some athletes have families that are in a financial position that allows and that are supportive of turning down an early scholarship offer, not knowing if one will be there later. Others don't. As I stated earlier, I don't think that early commits are the problem. The problem is the "race to the bottom" leading to earlier and earlier offers.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Feb 1, 2014 15:16:02 GMT -5
But it's all verbal, all nebulous. How do you police such a thing? Why settle for less than a written offer with a two-year guarantee, if that's what is called for? If it was possible to get this, this would also further restrict and control the athlete. I think the freedom to make changes as things come is a better choice. Sure a verbal can go out the door with a coaching change, but it also leaves the recruit an out if they don't want to be with the new coach.
|
|